Fractal Lojban Sentences
I seem to be getting you in duplicate for some
reason.
> Re: Fractal Lojban Sentences
> > Well, we can argue a bit about whether a
> thing
>
> -snip-
>
> Hm. Do you toke while surfing lojban.org?
Alas, no. It might help in seeing the sense of
some of the things out here, but I don't do it.
> 
I can make little sense of
> (something about 
) your post, save that
> you seem to be disagreeing with me...somehow.
Not exactly disagreeing, just asking for more
justification. To say that the proper subjection
of evaluation is not a thing but a property of
aor fact about a thing is not a matter of logic
but of a certain axiological theory (one I don't
subscribe to, obviously) and I don't see the need
to embed that theory in Lojban, which ought to be
able to express it and its rivals without
prejudice.
> I don't see how constraining place definitions
> to be logical is being philosophical. Besides,
> Lojban imposes philosophy (mandating the use of
> different kinds of causation, to cite one
> example) on its speakers as it is.
This seems to me to be less philosophy than
noticing that very different kinds of things are
called reasons or causes for something (objects,
events, utterances, intentions, and so on). The
variety is more to allow the distinctions to be
made (as they cannot be easily in English,
say)than to force them to be made.
> Assuming that {xamgu1} is not constrained
> beyond its current definition, unicorns can
> be xmagu, as {le pavyseljirna cu xamgu tu'a
> loi lisri}.
Well, Hell, anything will work with {le}. But
notice that {lo pavyseljirna cu xamgu loi lisri}
(I am not sure why the {tu'a} here either) is
false when there are no unicorns — unless it is
taken — as I assume it would be — as some
nonrealis mode "Unicorns would be ...."
{tu'a] has typically been used in two situations:
when the meaning requires an abstraction
({sucta1} for example)or to avoid unmarked opaque
places ({nitcu2}, say). The latter involves
using transparent places with intensional object
mentioned in place of opaque places with
extensional objects. It has a double advantage:
all the usual logical rules still work and the
problem areas are marked. Unfortunately, this
program has not been carried through completely
-- there are opaque places which are not
restricted to abstractions. Many of these are
careless malglico, copying subject raising for
example, but a few seem to be real cases that got
overlooked. I don't see {xamgu} as falling into
this problem (indeed, it clearly does not) nor
into the first case (I do agree, obviously, that
there are some errors due to malglicitude).
> Also, the "preview" button is your friend.
I don't have a "preview" button and, if I did, it
would not help: I am as bad an editor/proofreader
as I am a typist.